Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

BettyO · (This post was last modified: 08-28-2012 10:32 AM by BettyO.)

Just curious --

When Garrett's tobacco barn was burned - he had been storing some of his neighbor's furniture inside it, correct? NOT tobacco....

What did his neighbor's think of the barn and their possessions burning? Was Garrett ever reimbursed for the damages? Seems that I read somewhere that he was --

Since his neighbors furnishings were lost, were they compensated?

Rob Wick · 08-28-2012, 10:55 AM

Betty,

They weren't ever compensated, although they did file a claim with the government. Here is a copy of the congressional report about the claim, which was denied.

Best
Rob

Laurie Verge · 08-28-2012, 10:58 AM

If I am not mistaken, I believe that someone said that Edwin Booth eventually paid the Garretts for the loss of their property. I don't know if that included the items that they had stored for others, however.

Rob Wick · 08-28-2012, 11:02 AM

The report I posted put the value of the furniture at $145 while Garrett's property was valued at $2,525.

Best
Rob

BettyO · (This post was last modified: 08-28-2012 11:07 AM by BettyO.)

(08-28-2012 10:55 AM)Rob Wick Wrote: Betty,

They weren't ever compensated, although they did file a claim with the government. Here is a copy of the congressional report about the claim, which was denied.

Best
Rob

Thanks, Rob! That's what I thought -- but I could not find the report.

Thanks bunches!

(08-28-2012 10:58 AM)Laurie Verge Wrote: If I am not mistaken, I believe that someone said that Edwin Booth eventually paid the Garretts for the loss of their property. I don't know if that included the items that they had stored for others, however.

I, too had heard that Edwin Booth paid the tab -- but was just wondering how much.....

HerbS · 08-28-2012, 11:55 AM

Rob,What a fantastic job of research! It is shows that you never stop learning,no matter what age you are!

J. Beckert · (This post was last modified: 08-28-2012 12:02 PM by J. Beckert.)

Edwin Booth did pay the Garrett's but I've never heard how much. Someone posted an article a while back with the contents of the letter Edwin wrote them thanking him for their kindness to his "misguided brother".

Garrett's claim against the Gov't for his loss was denied because of his rebel leanings.

Rob Wick · 08-28-2012, 12:03 PM

Thanks Herb, but I have to give credit to Dave Taylor, who alerted me to the document on another website. Luckily I still had the link to it saved.

Best
Rob

Jim Garrett · 08-28-2012, 04:08 PM

Richard Baynham Garrett and Edwin Booth had kept up some correspondences. RBG gave Edwin a snip (probably from the Lucinda Holloway lock) of his brother's hair. Edwin felt sorrow that his brother had brought such misfortune on the Garretts.

As far as government compensation......Not only was there no way, there was NWIH that Edwin Stanton would pay any rebel anything!.......EVER! That seemed to be made quite clear with the reward money. It could be argued (probably successfully) that at least Bettie Rollins was entitled. She freely gave up information that led directly to Jett, hence to JWB, and William Rollin led them to the front door of the Star Hotel. It could be argued that Jett should have got something for leading them back to the Garretts. The only thing any Virginian received out of this mess was contempt. Sorry Laurie the roots of my Virginia Creeper are showing.

Dave Taylor · 08-28-2012, 04:18 PM

I do enjoy my Garretts. I had the opportunity last month to visit with a 100 year old descendant of the Garrett family. Her grandfather was Robert Clarence Garrett who was seven years old when Booth died at their farm. I had a very enjoyable weekend with them and she was as sharp as a tack.

Laurie and Joe, can you remember where you read that Edwin paid for the barn? I know that Edwin did present Rev. Richard Baynham Garrett with a gift years later, but I've never heard that he paid the family for their losses.

J. Beckert · 08-28-2012, 04:20 PM

I'm thinking it was "The Mad Booth's of Maryland", Dave.

Dave Taylor · 08-28-2012, 04:21 PM

Thanks, Joe. I'll check it later.

Rob Wick · 08-28-2012, 04:44 PM

Quote: It could be argued that Jett should have got something for leading them back to the Garretts.

Jim,

The problem I see with that was that Jett only did so after Conger had his gun held to Jett's head. If Jett had gone to the authorities after he deposited Booth at Garrett's Farm, then maybe. I do agree with you on Bettie Rollins, however.

Best
Rob

RJNorton · (This post was last modified: 08-29-2012 05:45 AM by RJNorton.)

Dave, some other books that have this are Roscoe's book (p. 405), Borreson's book (p.223), and Cottrell's book (p.249). Roscoe and Borreson cite Ruggles (p. 213) as their source. Ruggles' book is not footnoted, but I am thinking that is where most (if not all) of the authors who include this in their books saw this information. I do not know what Ruggles source might have been. Kimmel?

Jim Garrett · 08-28-2012, 05:08 PM

(08-28-2012 04:44 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:
Quote: It could be argued that Jett should have got something for leading them back to the Garretts.

Jim,

The problem I see with that was that Jett only did so after Conger had his gun held to Jett's head. If Jett had gone to the authorities after he deposited Booth at Garrett's Farm, then maybe. I do agree with you on Bettie Rollins, however.

Best
Rob

Yes, the Willie Jett is kinda on the boarder. I don't think Jett really even had enough time to offer up any information before he was looking down the business end of a Colt.